Editor’s Note: Today’s post is by Maryam Sayab. Maryam is the Director of Communications at the Asian Council of Science Editors (ACSE) and Co-Chair of Peer Review Week 2024. With a background rooted in research integrity and publication ethics, she actively works to advance regional conversations around responsible peer review, transparent editorial practices, and inclusive open science. Maryam is dedicated to building bridges between global publishing standards and the practical realities faced by researchers and editors, especially across Asia and the Arab world. She also supports initiatives that strengthen community-driven collaboration, ethical scholarship, and the sustainable development of research ecosystems.

Open Science has evolved from a grassroots movement into a central policy agenda, guided by frameworks like the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science and national mandates across Europe and North America. While these frameworks aim for global inclusivity, their implementation often overlooks the complex, everyday realities of research communities across Asia and the Arab world — where infrastructure gaps, linguistic barriers, and institutional limitations are just as real as the scientific ambition.

As someone working at the intersection of regional publishing, capacity-building, and science communication, I’ve witnessed both the promise of Open Science and the disconnect between global ideals and local feasibility. This post reflects on how we can bridge that gap — by shifting from top-down models to contextualized, collaborative strategies that respect the diversity of research ecosystems across Asia.

The Global Vision of Open Science: A Movement Gaining Momentum

In the past decade, Open Science has gone from aspirational to actionable. Landmark policies like UNESCO’s 2021 Recommendation, Plan S in Europe, and the NIH’s data-sharing mandates have galvanized institutions and funders around the world. The message is clear: knowledge should be transparent, accessible, and shared.

However, as the movement scales, so too do the equity gaps. These frameworks often assume a research environment with stable internet, open repositories, policy infrastructure, and cultural readiness for change. For much of Asia and the Arab world, this vision is aspirational — but not yet within reach.

Regional Realities: What Global Mandates Often Miss

Can we truly call Open Science “open” if it doesn’t account for local constraints?

• Infrastructure Gaps: Many universities across South and Southeast Asia still operate without robust institutional repositories or reliable internet connectivity. Open data mandates sound reasonable — until you try uploading a dataset over a 2G network. In the Arab world, underdeveloped infrastructure and a digital divide between countries further complicate Open Science implementation.
• Language Barriers: The dominance of English in Open Science discourse sidelines scholars working in regional or indigenous languages, reinforcing inequities in knowledge production and recognition.
• Policy Disconnects: Researchers are often caught between international mandates and local regulations that either don’t exist or are still in flux.
• Trust and Cultural Resistance: For many, Open Science is not just a technical shift — it’s a cultural one. Concerns over data misuse, academic scooping, or lack of credit deter researchers from fully engaging with preprints or open peer review.

These aren’t theoretical concerns. They shape behavior, access, and participation every day. And unless we understand and address them, the promise of Open Science will remain unevenly distributed.

Bright Spots: What Localized Open Science Looks Like in Practice

Despite the hurdles, change is happening — and it’s happening from the ground up.

• Grassroots Innovations: Initiatives like RINarxiv in Indonesia and institutional pilots in Pakistan, Jordan, and Malaysia show that local adaptation works when communities are empowered. In the Arab world, the Arab Public Data Initiative aims to promote data sharing norms among social scientists, providing a data-sharing infrastructure through the ACSS Dataverse.
• Capacity Building: Regional workshops — on topics like metadata curation, repository development, and responsible data sharing — have proven more transformative than any policy memo.
• Community Champions: Librarians, journal editors, and regional publishers are taking the lead in contextualizing Open Science and mentoring their communities into it. For instance, the launch of Al Wusul, a bilingual journal dedicated to Open Science in the Arab world, offers a platform for sharing innovative solutions and addressing regional challenges.

As one librarian shared during a workshop in Dubai, “Open Science is not just a policy change—it’s a mindset shift. But we need tools, not just talk.”

Building Bridges, Not Pipelines: Rethinking Knowledge Flow

Most global Open Science frameworks tend to follow a familiar trajectory: designed in the Global North, deployed in the Global South. This pipeline approach often overlooks the nuanced ecosystems where these policies are expected to take root.

But what if we flipped the model — from imposition to collaboration?

Instead of pushing one-size-fits-all solutions, we should be building bridges that support mutual learning, co-creation, and contextual innovation.

• Co-Design, Not Compliance: Regional actors should co-create — not just implement — Open Science policies and infrastructures.
• South-South Collaborations: Instead of waiting for solutions from the Global North, countries can learn from one another’s localized models of success.
• Flexible Frameworks: Policies should be adaptable to institutional readiness, language needs, and cultural context — not rigidly prescriptive.
• Bibliodiversity and Inclusion: We must support multilingual publishing, recognize non-Western knowledge systems, and embed equity at the heart of global strategies.

Localization is not resistance. It’s resilience.

What Asia Needs: Beyond Implementation, Toward Integration

From my work with the Asian Council of Science Editors (ACSE), I’ve learned that many Asian journals don’t resist global standards — they lack the resources to meet them. Training in metadata standards, DOI management, and ethical peer review is often sporadic, donor-dependent, or entirely absent. Community-run repositories exist but operate in silos, without pathways to global visibility.

To truly integrate Asia into the Open Science ecosystem, we need:

• Regional frameworks aligned with, but not subordinate to, global directives;
• Long-term investment in training and infrastructure, not just compliance checklists;
• Recognition systems that align with regional academic values and incentives;
• Collaborative partnerships where local voices guide strategy — not just adopt it.

A Path Forward: Practical Recommendations

• Funders must invest in capacity and infrastructure — not just demand openness.
• Open Science platforms should support policy translation and regional onboarding.
• Publishers must enable regional languages, fair APC waivers, and equitable peer review pathways.
• Global coalitions must champion diverse metrics that value community impact and local knowledge, not just citation counts.

The Role of Intermediaries: Translating Vision into Reality

In Asia, we need more Open Science intermediaries — people and organizations who bridge global agendas and local practice. Networks like ACSE, regional research councils, and independent editors already speak both languages. With proper support, they can help translate policy into practice, and aspiration into adoption.

Through my own advocacy — whether in workshops with Crossref, sessions with local editors, or forums on metadata — I’ve seen the change that happens when global actors listen, collaborate, and adapt.

Why This Matters Now

Asia is not a peripheral player in global science — it’s a driver. China, India, South Korea, and an expanding Southeast Asian research base are shaping the future of scientific output. But without equitable Open Science pathways, this momentum risks fragmentation, under-recognition, and systemic exclusion.

We cannot afford to treat Asia as a “user base” for Open Science. It must be a co-creator.

Closing Thoughts: Inclusion Starts with Listening

The vision of Open Science is global — but its roots must grow locally. If we truly want an inclusive and equitable research ecosystem, we must stop treating openness as something to be exported and start cultivating it as a shared dialogue. That means listening, adapting, and investing — especially in regions like Asia and the Arab world, where the potential is immense, but the pathways remain underdeveloped.

Experts across these regions consistently point to a recurring issue: Open Science policies are often crafted with high-capacity institutions in mind, overlooking the deep structural, linguistic, and economic disparities that persist in many research communities. Whether it’s the lack of persistent identifiers in Arabic-script journals, the absence of sustainable funding models for regional repositories, or the limited access to global indexing systems, these aren’t mere operational gaps — they are barriers to visibility, inclusion, and equity.

Regional stakeholders — including librarians, journal editors, early-career researchers, and science policy leaders — have stressed that infrastructure and policy must go hand in hand with empowerment. Localization isn’t about lowering standards; it’s about making global best practices usable and meaningful in local contexts. That means translating not just language, but also frameworks, incentives, and tools. It means recognizing that openness in science should be a partnership, not a prescription.

There is a pressing need for:

• Locally led capacity-building efforts that are iterative, context-aware, and community-driven.
• Interoperable yet multilingual platforms that support not only content discovery but also content creation in regional languages.
• Cross-regional coalitions where Global South actors define the agenda, not just participate in it.
• Funding mechanisms that are long-term and oriented toward infrastructure sustainability, not just short-term compliance with mandates.

The future of Open Science won’t be built by declarations alone. It will be built by bridges — across disciplines, across languages, and across geographies. Experts from Asia and the Arab world are not just calling for inclusion — they are offering models of resilience, innovation, and co-creation. It’s time the global Open Science movement stopped to listen.

If the global Open Science movement wants to thrive, it’s time to co-create — not just coordinate. Because true openness? It starts with shared ownership.